3 ms·

Half of your points are not part of the current draft. The dispensaries from last years key issues paper are not even pursued anymore beyond the evaluation regi

Half of your points are not part of the current draft. The dispensaries from last years key issues paper are not even pursued anymore beyond the evaluation region concept in the "2-column-model" ever since the EU commission gave feedback on it. That also made the question of taxation moot for now. Contrary to popular believe Germany cannot just change EU laws. With only a handful of countries in the EU making efforts to get any decriminalization going in their own countries a change to the EU's drug policy is not gonna happen. The majority of member states are just not interested, there's no wide support for the issue in Brussels. Is the 200m vicinity rule stupid? Maybe, but it has precedent. Malta has the same rule in their respective law it enacted at the end of 2021, only it's 50m further. Malta is also the only EU-country that even has legislation regarding Cannabis Social / Growing Clubs. The clubs in other EU-countries (Spain and Belgium?) all operate in legal grey areas. The security requirements for homegrowing are not strict at all. All you need is a lock ('mechanische oder elektronische Verriegelungsvorrichtungen'). If you grow in a greenhouse outside of your living space it needs a lock. If you grow inside you living space I suppose there are locks already present. If there are kids around or other people that should not have access, lock the room, obviously. Keep your produce in a lockable container. That's it. Sensible stuff. Maybe you should actually read the current draft: https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/presse/pressemitteilungen/bundeskabinett-beschliesst-cannabisgesetz-pm-16-08-23.html https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/presse/pressemit... (pdf at bottom of the page; don't skip the 'Besondere Teil'). The idea that Lauterbach was never a fan of the idea is simply wrong. He publicly expressed support for the idea during the coalition negotiations. The suggestion that the SPD (or any of the other Ampel parties, for that matter) in a potential upcoming coalition with the CDU would repeal the very law they just enacted in the former coalition is utter nonsense.

c4mpute 3y ago
I don't know what you mean about there not being dispensaries, but the article says: > Decriminalization is the first step. In the next step, specialist shops are able to sell cannabis and products containing THC — but only in selected districts and cities, which are to be named so-called model regions for a period of five years. So maybe this will be in a followup law. And about the security requirements, the law says: > geeignete Maßnahmen und Sicherheitsvorkehrungen (roughly: suitable measures and security measures) Which is more lenient than I thought. But very vague, such that there will definitely be a period of uncertainty and a few attempts at prosecution until there is sufficient case law to define what that means. Remember that famously the German supreme court decided it to be illegal to criminally prosecute the posession of "small" amounts of cannabis. Which is interpreted in totally different ways in different states, down to the extreme of Bavaria, where "small" means "undetectable or zero". So I fully expect the Bavarian police and state attorneys to try to prosecute everyone and their dog for having "unsuitable" measures, because the wording is too vague. Lauterbach started supporting legalization during coalition negotiations, at first citing some very strange arguments: https://www.fr.de/politik/karl-lauterbach-cannabis-drogen-legalisierung-gefahren-strassenhandel-politik-zr-91049471.html https://www.fr.de/politik/karl-lauterbach-cannabis-drogen-le... > illegal verkauften Straßencannabis neuartiges Heroin beigemischt, das sich rauchen lässt (roughly: illegally soled street cannabis is mixed with a new kind of heroin that can be smoked) Reading between the lines I find it clear that his change of heart was for political reasons and he just needed some factual-sounding argument, no matter how weird.
- nebalee 3y ago
  The draft has even more info on the security measures in its rationale section (Begründung / 4. Erfüllungsaufwand)[0] including an estimated cost for the private growing. It's €20. Any padlocked container or closet will do; there's no ambiguity here. Even better, read §36. Violating the required measures is not a criminal offence, it's a misdemeanour (Ordnungswidrigkeit). [0] which by the way is commonly used be judges when they deliberate the verdict: https://www.verwaltung-innovativ.de/DE/Gesetzgebung/Projekt_eGesetzgebung/Handbuecher_Arbeitshilfen_Leitfaeden/Hb_vorbereitung_rechts_u_verwaltungsvorschriften/Teil_IV_Vertiefte_Betrachtung/1_Anforderungen/1_Anforderungen_node.html#doc7662226bodyText4 https://www.verwaltung-innovativ.de/DE/Gesetzgebung/Projekt_...

c4mpute 3y ago

I don't know what you mean about there not being dispensaries, but the article says: > Decriminalization is the first step. In the next step, specialist shops are able to sell cannabis and products containing THC — but only in selected districts and cities, which are to be named so-called model regions for a period of five years. So maybe this will be in a followup law. And about the security requirements, the law says: > geeignete Maßnahmen und Sicherheitsvorkehrungen (roughly: suitable measures and security measures) Which is more lenient than I thought. But very vague, such that there will definitely be a period of uncertainty and a few attempts at prosecution until there is sufficient case law to define what that means. Remember that famously the German supreme court decided it to be illegal to criminally prosecute the posession of "small" amounts of cannabis. Which is interpreted in totally different ways in different states, down to the extreme of Bavaria, where "small" means "undetectable or zero". So I fully expect the Bavarian police and state attorneys to try to prosecute everyone and their dog for having "unsuitable" measures, because the wording is too vague. Lauterbach started supporting legalization during coalition negotiations, at first citing some very strange arguments: https://www.fr.de/politik/karl-lauterbach-cannabis-drogen-legalisierung-gefahren-strassenhandel-politik-zr-91049471.html https://www.fr.de/politik/karl-lauterbach-cannabis-drogen-le... > illegal verkauften Straßencannabis neuartiges Heroin beigemischt, das sich rauchen lässt (roughly: illegally soled street cannabis is mixed with a new kind of heroin that can be smoked) Reading between the lines I find it clear that his change of heart was for political reasons and he just needed some factual-sounding argument, no matter how weird.

nebalee 3y ago
The draft has even more info on the security measures in its rationale section (Begründung / 4. Erfüllungsaufwand)[0] including an estimated cost for the private growing. It's €20. Any padlocked container or closet will do; there's no ambiguity here. Even better, read §36. Violating the required measures is not a criminal offence, it's a misdemeanour (Ordnungswidrigkeit). [0] which by the way is commonly used be judges when they deliberate the verdict: https://www.verwaltung-innovativ.de/DE/Gesetzgebung/Projekt_eGesetzgebung/Handbuecher_Arbeitshilfen_Leitfaeden/Hb_vorbereitung_rechts_u_verwaltungsvorschriften/Teil_IV_Vertiefte_Betrachtung/1_Anforderungen/1_Anforderungen_node.html#doc7662226bodyText4 https://www.verwaltung-innovativ.de/DE/Gesetzgebung/Projekt_...